Support NeoGAF

[diehard]

Once again, I feel like the tank that is in the field doing things is actually superior to the much fancier tank that is still in the factory or broken down on the road to the frontline.

Obviously, but the logistical failings of the Nazi's shouldn't count in a strict "Tank vs Tank" comparison.

A pretty in-depth comparison written here https://www.amazon.com/dp/184603292X/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Logistics, moral, and crew experience all add up to mean more than technical merits.. but based purely on technical merits, the Panther is still a superior tank IMO.

 

[4Tran]

Obviously, but the logistical failings of the Nazi's shouldn't count in a strict "Tank vs Tank" comparison.

A pretty in-depth comparison written here https://www.amazon.com/dp/184603292X/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Logistics, moral, and crew experience all add up to mean more than technical merits.. but based purely on technical merits, the Panther is still a superior tank.

That post is saying that the Panther will break down far more often, usually due to a poorly designed final drive. And even on purely technical merits, the Sherman is overall the better tank if you look at what a tank is supposed to do.

 

[nded]

Obviously, but the logistical failings of the Nazi's shouldn't count in a strict "Tank vs Tank" comparison.

A pretty in-depth comparison written here https://www.amazon.com/dp/184603292X/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Logistics, moral, and crew experience all add up to mean more than technical merits.. but based purely on technical merits, the Panther is still a superior tank IMO.

Panthers couldn't even travel to the battlefield on their own power. These stupid things had to catch a train.

In bar-room brawl terms the Sherman would be a mob of good all-rounders while the Panthers would be a smaller group of bruisers with dickey knees and binoculars permanently glued to his eyes. Also some of the Panthers would occasionally suffer strokes on the way to the bar.

 

[Necro]

Sherman = Midwar Medium Tank

Panther = End of War Medium tank

Pershing = Americas End of War Medium Tank

 

[yamaneko]

 

[SofNasciment-]

My impression is that Germany did a lot of bad decisions in WW2 when it comes to weapons development. Their tanks, for example, were much better on paper than on practice, all things considered.

 

[pigeon]

That post is saying that the Panther will break down far more often, usually due to a poorly designed final drive. And even on purely technical merits, the Sherman is overall the better tank if you look at what a tank is supposed to do.

Yeah, this is the point. Just saying to leave logistics out ignores the fact that reliability is a design principle.

It's the same reason that the AK-47 (also invented during WWII!) became the most successful firearm in history. Ease of use and ease of production count for a lot more than hypothetical maximum output.

 

[iidesuyo]

First photo of earth from space in 1946, taken by a V2 rocket captured by the US.

 

[4Tran]

Panthers couldn't even travel to the battlefield on their own power. These stupid things had to catch a train.

To be fair, trains were the preferred way of transporting tanks in general. However, the German tanks, particularly the Panther, Tiger I, and Tiger II, were especially confined to rail.

Sherman = Midwar Medium Tank

Panther = End of War Medium tank

Pershing = Americas End of War Medium Tank

You might want to check the dates: the Sherman was first deployed in late 1942, the Panther in early 1943 and the Pershing in early 1945. Besides, the Pershing was classified and employed as a heavy tank until the war was over.

 

[reckless]

Obviously, but the logistical failings of the Nazi's shouldn't count in a strict "Tank vs Tank" comparison.

A pretty in-depth comparison written here https://www.amazon.com/dp/184603292X/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Logistics, moral, and crew experience all add up to mean more than technical merits.. but based purely on technical merits, the Panther is still a superior tank IMO.

I mean if you just want to look at technical specifications and a head to head matchup I guess the Maus would be the best tank of WW2!

And not the useless disaster it actually was.

 

[Prez]

First photo of earth from space in 1946, taken by a V2 rocket captured by the US.

Looks flat to me.

 

[iidesuyo]

Looks flat to me.

By then (1946) it was already known that the earth was round, no one would question it anymore.

 

[longdi]

"Insane"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

Just a selection:

I always wondered if such experiments still exist today, underground. Perhaps even by a rich group people like the illuminati.

Grafting parts here and there, administrating weird ass mutagen, genetically cloning playing god..

 

[phaze]

In general, I think that the Germans had a good run during the early war, but it was one that was largely expected of them. I'd contend that the overwhelming victory during the Battle of France still says a lot of good things about the Wehrmacht. They succeeded beyond all expectations and they did so as quickly as humanly possible. It's the high-water mark of German military accomplishment, and I don't think it should be downplayed.

If they hadn't won the campaign quickly, it's possible that they wouldn't have won at all since Germany didn't have the industrial capacity to sustain a long war. And with Stalin acting as a constant threat, I don't think that they could have committed the forces for long enough to grind down the France and Britain.

It's been a while since I've read Tooze but Germans fought for 4 years in WWI in a worse political/economic constellation, honestly I've hard time believing that for economic reasons they could not repeat the feat in 1940. As for the campaign itself, I don't want to belittle the German effort too much but the more I read of it the more rather than some silly auftragstaktik, Guderian,blitzkrieg and whateves, I see the cause as 1. Your tired but true story of really bad French deployment. 2 Plain inexperience of allied soldiers. But With disparity in manpower, no Russian/Italian front, technological progress increasing the degree of mobility in armies and the British not pulling their weight, I've trouble seeing French victory or even survival in the long run also.

On the other hand, Barbarossa was a disaster, and the Germans should have known better going in. And all three Allies were committed to the Asian theater: the Soviets maintained about a million men on the border against Japan at all points during the war.

Well inactive border is somewhat different than active combat but sure, Japanese threat made Stalin maintain large forces in the East.

 

[HariKari]

My impression is that Germany did a lot of bad decisions in WW2 when it comes to weapons development. Their tanks, for example, were much better on paper than on practice, all things considered.

It would be interesting to see how focusing on producing more StuG III/IV and Pz 4s while skipping the Panther and Tiger lines entirely might have worked out materially. German TDs and AT guns were good to excellent, so the focus on tank on tank performance for their main lines (to the exclusion of infantry support capability in many cases) didn't really make sense.

The inability of the Panther to reliably move even a few hundred km without fatal mechanical problems was comical. Doubly so if you consider the allies were almost guaranteed to have to complete air superiority.

 

[iidesuyo]

When you think about it, when you REALLY think about it, WWII was so incredibly insane, sometimes I can hardly believe all of this happened.

Such an insane waste of human lifes.

 

[Dr.Phibes]

When you think about it, when you REALLY think about it, WWII was so incredibly insane, sometimes I can hardly believe all of this happened.

Such an insane waste of human lifes.

I'm not religious but we can only thank the gods that madmen like Hitler and Stalin never were in possession of nuclear weapons during the war.

 

[iidesuyo]

I'm not religious but we can only thank the gods that madmen like Hitler and Stalin never were in possession of nuclear weapons during the war.

Difficult topic, but for whatever reason the Nazis refrained from using poison gas in actual warfare (it was used massively in WWI).

They used it to murder Jews and other people they regarded "undesirable" though of course...

 

[danthefan]

When you think about it, when you REALLY think about it, WWII was so incredibly insane, sometimes I can hardly believe all of this happened.

Such an insane waste of human lifes.

Yep, it was straigh up batshit crazy. I can't imagine living through something like that.

 

[Finky Spunky]

OP's first post reminds me of my personal favorite Star Fox 64 mission on Macbeth

 

[iidesuyo]

OP's first post reminds me of my personal favorite Star Fox 64 mission on Macbeth

But why?

 

[kasrkinsquad]

Difficult topic, but for whatever reason the Nazis refrained from using poison gas in actual warfare (it was used massively in WWI).

They used it to murder Jews and other people they regarded "undesirable" though of course...

I once heard Hitler didnt like chemical weapons. He was gassed once during WW1. So perhaps a combination of not wanting to use a weapon he dislikes plus any use of chemical weapons would definately have been responded to in kind by the allies.

 

[Atom Heart Mother]

OP's first post reminds me of my personal favorite Star Fox 64 mission on Macbeth

HIT THE BREAKS

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

I always wondered if such experiments still exist today, underground. Perhaps even by a rich group people like the illuminati.

Grafting parts here and there, administrating weird ass mutagen, genetically cloning playing god..

You mean like the American Psychological Association condoning torture by the CIA?
American Psychological Association Bolstered C.I.A. Torture Program, Report Says

 

[Pancake Mix]

Yes the French were allied with British but the British contribution in 1940 was sadly, a joke, 47 million country with bigger GDP per capita deployed little bit more than 1/10 of the French contribution.

More war dead caused by throwing British lives against the blitzkrieg wouldn't have helped much and that's quite a lot to ask. World War I had nearly as significant a death toll on the British Empire as it did on the French Empire, despite the Western Front being on the continent. France was defended but it cost the allies dearly in people terms. In World War II, only the USSR had the raw numbers, brutal winters, and sheer landmass they could afford to lose to hold back or beat the Germans in a war of attrition, and that took years.

France and the UK simply didn't have a chance in 1939. The toll would have been even more horrific. Falling back to "Fortress Britain" ended up working in the end.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

I didn't realize that Germany actually had schematics for Imperial Guard tanks from WH40K.

 

[zer0das]

More war dead caused by throwing British lives against the blitzkrieg wouldn't have helped much and that's quite a lot to ask.

France and the UK simply didn't have a chance in 1939. The toll would have been even more horrific. Falling back to "Fortress Britain" ended up working in the end.

If France actually held up its obligations to Poland and had an offensive mentality, they likely could have kicked Germany's door down in 1939. 60 divisions occupied elsewhere can't be wheeled around that quickly, and the Siegfried line probably wouldn't have amounted to much when it would have been perhaps up to 100 Allied divisions against 30. Furthermore, there would not have been as many German aircraft available for use in the western front, since a substantial portion of them would be flying sorties in Poland. So France's main weakness would not be as dire as it was in the historical Battle of France.

Also 85% of the German armored divisions were in Poland, so once the French broke through the line, I doubt anything would stop them until the German divisions in Poland were recalled.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Damn Americans actually being smart and building vehicles that were reliable and easy to fix. Tanks that also didn't catch fire randomly due to shit transmissions(panther), armor that didn't just shatter or spall killing their crew, or drive trains that just completely failed leaving the tanks useless(tiger 2).

Sherman tanks were great for what the U.S needed. Tank duels are exceptionally rare events, but all people want to talk about when comparing tanks. And even in tank fights, the person who shoots first usually wins anyways, which the Sherman was good at thanks to a fast turret traverse, good visibility etc...

Didn't they have issues with Sherman tanks catching fire because they ran on Gasoline instead of Diesel?

 

[Joezie]

Difficult topic, but for whatever reason the Nazis refrained from using poison gas in actual warfare (it was used massively in WWI).

They used it to murder Jews and other people they regarded "undesirable" though of course...

I once heard Hitler didnt like chemical weapons. He was gassed once during WW1. So perhaps a combination of not wanting to use a weapon he dislikes plus any use of chemical weapons would definately have been responded to in kind by the allies.

The Nazi's did in fact make tactical wartime use of Chemical weapons. Multiple times in fact.

It was used on defenders in Sevastopol to flush them out from caverns.
Used on defenders in the Odessan oblast to clear them from the catacombs
and used in clearing out yet more Catacombs in he Adzhimushkay quarry during the Battle of Kerch.

However, like most things in WW2 as stated above, the Germans felt far more comfortable taking their risks to greater levels when it came to what they perceived to be subhumans. POW treatment among other things differs on a stupidly large scale in terms of east vs west alone.

 

[reckless]

Didn't they have issues with Sherman tanks catching fire because they ran on Gasoline instead of Diesel?

No that's a myth. Most fires were caused by ammunition, and they still burnt less then panzer 4's even before the upgrades to help stop fires.

 

[Bastables]

Didn't they have issues with Sherman tanks catching fire because they ran on Gasoline instead of Diesel?

This is only a thing because the Americans then took steps to corrrect ammunition cook off, which was much worse in Panthers, StuG's and PIV due to the greater amounts of propellant in the long 7,5cm cartridge. Also an issue with T34 76 and 85.
Again note the US was the only one to study the issue and implement design corrections in tank lines being built.

Diesel still burns, that's why it can be used in combustion engines, and when the accelerant is exploding cartridges it's just as flammable as gasoline.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Didn't they have issues with Sherman tanks catching fire because they ran on Gasoline instead of Diesel?

Not really, most tanks except for the T-34 at the time used gasoline engines, including the Pz IV and the Panther. The US First Army lost 502 Shermans to enemy gunfire and 579 crew members were killed due to that which is pretty good. Things like how much room there is to climb out of the tank quickly and how big the hatches are matter way more then the fuel carried.

An interesting quote from a Soviet tanker:

(After having his tank hit and set on fire by Germans) “We lay under the tank as it burned. We laid there a long time with nowhere to go. The Germans were covering the empty field around the tank with machine gun and mortar fires… …We heard many loud thumps coming from the turret. This was the armor-piercing rounds being blown out of their cases. Next the fire would reach the high explosive rounds and all hell would break loose! But nothing happened. Why not? Because our high explosive rounds detonated and the American rounds did not? In the end it was because the American ammunition had more refined explosives. Ours was some kind of component that increased the force of the explosion one and one-half times, at the same time increasing the risk of detonation of the ammunition.”

Note that the crew is hiding under the tank as the Sherman has a hatch in the bottom. In a T-34 the crew has to escape through hatches on top and expose themselves to enemy fire.

http://knowledgeglue.com/was-the-m4-sherman-really-that-bad-a-soviet-perspective/

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Didn't they have issues with Sherman tanks catching fire because they ran on Gasoline instead of Diesel?

No, the primary cause for all tanks (including the M4) igniting is ammunition cook off when struck by a projectile. The full story is a bit complicated as to whether it was ever really true that the Sherman was more likely to burn than other tanks, but when they changed the Sherman to use wet-stowage of ammunition with late war models, the burn rate dropped to the point where it was the least likely tank to ignite of the whole war - that's with a gasoline engine. Some figures have the Panzer IV (one of the most common German tanks of the war) as having equivalent burn rates to the early model Shermans.

The British experience was a bit different from the American - they did comparisons of their Cromwell and Sherman tanks (they fielded both), and found that the Shermans were no more likely to burn than the Cromwell was. I've heard speculation that this was because of different practices of ammunition storage, whereby American crews would tend to store additional shells in the hull beyond what it was normally designed for, thus increasing the probability of a cook-off when struck. But this is not certain.

One thing to keep in mind is that it was not uncommon to take extra shots at a tank that has already been knocked out of action or abandoned specifically to cause it to burn - a tank that has had an ammunition cook off generally cannot be recovered and repaired. This skews the statistics which generally were based on the percentage of destroyed tanks that burned. It was not possible to tell on a macro-level how many burned after the first shot, versus ones which burned after being hit multiple times, versus which ones burned after already being knocked out.

 

[DragoonKain]

I didn't read the whole thread, so this may have been touched on, but a lot of their genetic experimentation and stuff like that was ahead of its time too. They wanted to create super soldiers by crossbreeding human genes with animals and they also wanted to cross breed animals to create super beasts and things like that. They had a ton of secret experimental projects that they never ended up finishing, who knows what else they were up to that never was discovered and died with them in the war.

Thankfully these practices are now banned, because it's pretty sick, but had Germany won the war, who knows what kind of sick and twisted stuff they would have come up with in their labs.

I mean, if it weren't for their scientists, NASA would never be what it is today, as much as one could detest what Operation Paperclip was, its long-term effects lead to something very amazing for the US. So many grey areas in times of war. Who is define what is right and wrong? One of the things I like to ponder when reading about history.

 

[SixMachine]

But why?

It's a giant weaponized train. The stage has you basically are racing to the front of it while destroying it's cargo and weapons.

 

[iamblades]

The Germans were really only ahead in rocketry and chemical engineering at the start of the war relative to the allies. Rockets turned out to be shit weapons without guidance systems, and while the chemical engineering was useful in enabling Germany to fight at all while being starved for resources, it didn't make a huge impact on the battlefield.

They could have had a decent nuclear program if they hadn't run off 90% of the nuclear physicists by being douchbag nazis, but that's a what if.

Towards the end they rushed out some fairly advanced stuff that wasn't really ready for prime time no matter how neat it was on paper, but they never really managed to compete on hardware overall. They never had decent bombers or radar. They may have had better subs on paper, but the allies were so good at ASW that it never showed up in reality. They innovated with the StG 44, but it wasn't enough to outweigh the fact the every American soldier had a Garand as standard issue, and there were plenty of SMGs and BARs and various other types of weapons going around as well.

The biggest technological disadvantage the allies faced during the entire war were carrier based fighters at the start of the pacific war. Japanese Zeros were way way way better than the Buffalos and Wildcats the Navy had at the start. though that only lasted like 6 months until the Hellcats were introduced, and the fact that the Japanese didn't really care at all about pilot survivability(even before the Kamikaze) led to a severe mortality rate among experienced fighter pilots that Japan could not sustain with their training programs.

 

[BrhysH]

This is definitely one of the coolest things to come out of WW2, looks so futuristic for the time. Like something out of Fallout

Horten 229

Recent model recreation:

 

[llien]

Guard Tank armies get the best equipment, Soviets thought the Matilda and M3 as awful tanks and therefore were never issued to Guard armies.

My first reaction was "surely it happened when there was shortage of T34".
Except that wasn't the case.
USSR Guard armies were indeed taking Shermans over T34, that alone speaks for what was better indeed.

I stand corrected.

PS
Amazing, how many times I have seen T34 shown as the best WW2 tank, even by non-Russian (they spew out propaganda non-stop, especially under Putler) sources such as National Geographic or Discovery.

 

[4Tran]

You can argue that the Sherman is better than the T-34, and you can argue that the T-34 is better than the Sherman. Each has advantages over the other. On the whole, I'd say that the T-34 was slightly better given what its role was under Soviet doctrine. It has a better HE shell, it has a longer range, and a lower profile. The Sherman is slightly better at the anti-tank role and it has much better soft factors. In Manchuria, the Shermans ran out of gas while the T-34s were still able to advance.